[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46797-46804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18619]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 46797]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25250; Amdt. No. 91-302]
RIN 2120-AI63


Special Awareness Training for the Washington, DC Metropolitan 
Area

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is requiring ``special awareness'' training for any 
pilot who flies under visual flight rules (VFR) within a 60-nautical-
mile (NM) radius of the Washington, DC VHF omni-directional range/
distance measuring equipment (DCA VOR/DME). This training has been 
developed and provided by the FAA on its www.FAASafety.gov Web site and 
focuses primarily on training pilots on the procedures for flying in 
and around the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Defense Identification 
Zone (ADIZ) and the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted 
Zone (FRZ). The rule will reduce the number of unauthorized flights 
into the airspace of the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area ADIZ and FRZ 
through education of the pilot community.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 9, 2009. Affected 
parties, however, do not have to comply with the information collection 
requirement in Sec.  91.161 until the FAA publishes in the Federal 
Register the control number assigned by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for this information collection requirement. Publication 
of the control number notifies the public that OMB has approved this 
information collection requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this final rule contact: John D. Lynch, Certification and General 
Aviation Operations Branch, AFS-810, General Aviation and Commercial 
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 
267-3844.
    For legal questions concerning this final rule contact: Michael 
Chase, Air Traffic and Airman/Airport Certification Law Branch, Office 
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The Administrator of the FAA has broad authority to regulate the 
safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace (49 U.S.C. 40103). The 
Administrator also is authorized to issue air traffic rules and 
regulations to govern the flight of aircraft, the navigation, 
protection and identification of aircraft for the protection of persons 
and property on the ground, and for the efficient use of navigable 
airspace. Additionally, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3) the 
Administrator has the authority, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Defense, to ``establish security provisions that will encourage and 
allow maximum use of the navigable airspace by civil aircraft 
consistent with national security.''

List of Abbreviations and Terms Frequently Used in This Document

ADIZ--Air Defense Identification Zone
AOPA--Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
ATC--Air Traffic Control
DCA VOR/DME--Washington, DC very high frequency omni-directional 
range/distance measuring equipment
FDC--Flight Data Center
FRZ--Flight Restricted Zone
HAI--Helicopter Association International
IFR--Instrument flight rules
NATA--National Air Transportation Association
NM--Nautical mile
NOTAM--Notice to Airmen
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
VFR--Visual flight rules

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Establishment of the Washington, DC ADIZ
    B. Summary of the Special Awareness Training NPRM
    C. Other Washington, DC ADIZ-Related Rulemaking Activity
II. Discussion of Comments
    A. Application of the Training Program
    1. Applicability to Pilots
    2. Size of the ``Training Zone''
    3. Frequency of Training
    B. Washington, DC ADIZ Operating Requirements
    C. Air Traffic Control
    D. The FAA's Enforcement Policy
    E. Charting the Training Area
    F. Educational Outreach
    G. Impact on General Aviation Pilots
    H. Certificate of Training Completion
    I. The FAA's Web site
    J. Adopting a Training Requirement Based on a NOTAM
III. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
V. International Compatibility
VI. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates 
Assessment
VII. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
VIII. Environmental Analysis
IX. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use
X. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
XI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

I. Background

A. Establishment of the Washington, DC ADIZ

    In February 2003, the FAA, in consultation with the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and other 
Federal agencies, issued Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) implementing an 
outer Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and an inner Flight 
Restricted Zone (FRZ) around the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. At 
that time, the ADIZ closely resembled the Washington tri-area Class B 
airspace area. The FRZ, requiring more stringent access procedures than 
the ADIZ, was established within an approximately 15-nautical-mile (NM) 
radius from the Washington, DC very high frequency omni-directional 
range/distance measuring equipment (DCA VOR/DME). The NOTAMs also 
established radio communication, transponder, and flight plan 
requirements for pilots to follow. Some types of operations, such as 
U.S. military, law enforcement, and approved aeromedical flights, are

[[Page 46798]]

excluded from the requirements. The ADIZ and the FRZ, along with other 
security measures, enable the law enforcement and security communities 
to identify pilots and their intentions and to track aircraft operating 
in the vicinity of the nation's capital.
    On August 30, 2007, the airspace restrictions in the Washington, DC 
area were modified by Flight Data Center (FDC) NOTAMs 07/0206 and 07/
0211. While the specifications for the FRZ remain essentially the same 
(except that the western boundary has been moved slightly eastward), 
the radius of the ADIZ has been reduced to a 30-NM radius from the DCA 
VOR/DME, thereby reducing the number of airports affected by the 
airspace restrictions and making more navigable airspace available to 
pilots conducting operations in the area. In addition, the requirements 
to obtain appropriate authorization, establish two-way communication 
with Air Traffic Control (ATC), be equipped with an operating 
transponder with altitude-reporting capability, and file a flight plan 
remain the same. However, the revised NOTAM also added a ``maneuvering 
area'' for Leesburg Airport, and imposed an airspeed restriction of 180 
knots or less (if capable) within the ADIZ/FRZ. For VFR aircraft 
operations conducted between 30 and 60 NM of the DCA VOR/DME, aircraft 
are restricted to an indicated airspeed of 230 knots or less, unless 
otherwise authorized.
    Since the creation of the ADIZ, there have been over 3,000 
incursions into the Washington, DC ADIZ. Between February 12, 2003 and 
April 30, 2008, there were approximately 3,200 reported observed 
incursions into the Washington, DC ADIZ. A few of these flights came so 
close to the Capitol and the White House that they caused mass 
evacuations of these buildings and other Federal office buildings. In 
other incidents, civilian aircraft have been intercepted by U.S. Coast 
Guard helicopters and U.S. Air Force fighter airplanes. Although all of 
the incursions were eventually determined to be non-criminal in nature, 
each incursion places an unnecessary burden on Federal, state, and 
local law enforcement resources. For instance, when an unauthorized 
aircraft penetrates restricted airspace, the FAA's air traffic 
controllers must divert necessary resources to monitor the aircraft's 
flight, alert security operations, and communicate information about 
the aircraft to appropriate military and law enforcement agencies. 
Several branches of the Federal government, the military, and local law 
enforcement are forced to respond to the situation and to execute a 
potentially hazardous intercept under circumstances that typically 
prove not to have been a threat to our national security.

B. Summary of the Special Awareness Training NPRM

    On July 5, 2006, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled, ``Special Awareness Training for the Washington, DC 
Metropolitan Area'' (71 FR 38118). The FAA proposed that pilots flying 
VFR within a radius of 100 nautical miles (NM) of the DCA VOR/DME 
complete free online Special Awareness Training for operating in the 
Washington, DC metropolitan area and other Temporary Flight Restriction 
(TFR) areas. Pilots would be required to complete the training one 
time. Upon completion of the online training, a pilot would download a 
copy of his or her certificate of training completion. A copy of the 
certificate would have to be presented upon request of an authorized 
representative of the FAA, an authorized representative of National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), any Federal, State, or local law 
enforcement officer, or an authorized representative of the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
    The comment period for the NPRM closed on September 5, 2006. The 
FAA is issuing this rule essentially as proposed, except that the 
proposed requirement that training must be completed by pilots flying 
within a 100-NM radius from the DCA VOR/DME has been modified in the 
final rule to require training for pilots flying within a 60-NM radius 
of the DCA VOR/DME. The FAA will place a note on the Washington 
Sectional, Baltimore-Washington Terminal Area Sectional, Baltimore-
Washington Helicopter Route Sectional, and the CG-21 World Aeronautical 
Chart about the training requirement for the Washington, DC ADIZ and 
FRZ airspace.
    In addition, the heading of Sec.  91.161 has been modified to 
better describe the content of the section, and a paragraph entitled 
``Special Awareness Training'' has been added to describe the training 
required by Sec.  91.161 and where it is located.

C. Other Washington, DC ADIZ-Related Rulemaking Activity

    On August 4, 2005, the FAA issued an NPRM entitled, ``Washington, 
DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area'' (70 FR 45250) that 
proposed to codify current flight restrictions for certain aircraft 
operations in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. That rule remains 
in development, and this final rule is not directly related to the 
issues addressed in that rulemaking action.

II. Discussion of Comments

    The FAA received 65 comments on the NPRM, primarily from 
individuals but also from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 
(AOPA), the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), and 
Helicopter Association International (HAI). The FAA also received 
comments related to the August 4, 2005, ``Washington, DC Metropolitan 
Area Special Flight Rules Area'' proposed rule. Those comments are 
outside the scope of this rulemaking and will not be addressed here.
    Commenters generally expressed opposition to the NPRM. While many 
agreed that training could be helpful, they did not believe that the 
FAA's training program would be effective. A discussion of the comments 
follows.

A. Application of the Training Program

    Commenters had varying opinions on the FAA's proposed audience, 
curriculum, and testing criteria for the Special Awareness Training. 
After considering all these comments, the FAA has decided not to change 
the proposed requirements for the training program, its target audience 
or its frequency. The agency believes that due to the potential impact 
of an incursion on the pilot, Federal resources, and the public, 
mandatory training is necessary, even if the incursion was inadvertent. 
The FAA believes the training curriculum is well designed and focuses 
on how to fly safely in the Washington, DC ADIZ and FRZ. The training 
is designed to cover the correct procedures for operating near or 
inside the DC ADIZ. While at least one commenter would have the 
training also address normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures 
resulting from transponder failure, navigation errors, dyslexia, or 
accidentally hitting the wrong button on annunciator or radio panel, 
the FAA did not feel this was appropriate, as there are other training 
programs that cover this material.
1. Applicability to Pilots
    With regard to whom the training requirement applied, a few 
commenters believed that training should be required of all pilots, not 
just those who anticipated flying within 100 NM of the DCA VOR/DME 
under IFR. In fact, one commenter felt that completion of training 
should be a prerequisite for any pilot's license renewal. Others, on 
the other hand, asked that the agency carve out exclusions for certain 
types of pilots

[[Page 46799]]

and operations or the training should be voluntary.
    The FAA believes it is important that any pilot, whether acting as 
pilot in command or second in command, receive Special Awareness 
Training if the pilot has any intention of operating an aircraft under 
VFR within 60 NM of the DCA VOR/DME. Thus, Sec.  91.161 applies when 
conducting operations under 14 CFR parts 91, 121, 125, 129, 133, 135 
and 137. And, regardless of the type of pilot certificate held (e.g., 
sport, recreational, student, private, commercial, airline transport 
pilot (ATP), or foreign), or where the flight originated (e.g., 
Virginia, California, or even Canada), a pilot is subject to this 
Special Awareness Training requirement as a prerequisite for flying 
under VFR within a 60-NM radius of the DCA VOR/DME.
    One commenter argued for a sport pilot exclusion because these 
pilots do not routinely fly in controlled airspace. He also suggested 
that pilots of gliders, balloons, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-
control aircraft be excluded because these aircraft are limited in 
range. The FAA acknowledges that holders of sport pilot certificates 
are not permitted to operate in Class A, B, C, or D airspace, at an 
airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, or at an airport having 
an operational control tower. However, sport pilots who hold the 
necessary endorsements and whose aircraft are appropriately equipped 
may perform those operations and hence could make unauthorized flights 
into the Washington, DC airspace. Therefore the FAA has determined that 
it is necessary to require this training of sport pilots as part of the 
agency's efforts to educate the pilot community and reduce the number 
of unauthorized flights into the Washington, DC airspace. In addition, 
the FAA does not agree that an aircraft's range limitations would 
necessarily prevent a pilot from making an unauthorized flight into the 
Washington, DC airspace. The FAA maintains that no matter what the 
pilot certificate or aircraft, if a pilot is flying under VFR in the 
identified area, then training should be required.
    AOPA recommended exclusion for pilots who have been vetted for 
operations into the FRZ since they already receive special security 
training. The FAA is familiar with the security training requirements 
and finds significant differences in its curriculum versus the training 
required by Sec.  91.161. The Special Awareness Training focuses on 
safe operating practices in the Washington, DC airspace while the 
security training for operating in the FRZ focuses on pre-flight and 
flight procedure requirements for all flight-restricted zones.
2. Size of the ``Training Zone''
    As proposed, the FAA would have required pilots flying VFR within a 
100-NM radius of the DCA VOR/DME to certify that they had completed the 
training program that is the subject of this rule.
    Several commenters believed that requiring the larger training zone 
had the effect of extending the Washington, DC ADIZ and its operating 
requirements to a 100-NM radius of the DCA VOR/DME. Since publication 
of the NPRM, the size of the DC ADIZ itself has been reduced to 30 NM 
from the DCA VOR/DME by the August 30, 2007 NOTAM. Also by NOTAM (FDC 
NOTAM 7/0204), the FAA has implemented an additional speed restriction 
for VFR operations between 30 NM and 60 NM of the DCA VOR/DME. The FAA 
has therefore decided to reduce the size of the ``training zone'' to 60 
NM from the DCA VOR/DME, which matches the 60-NM speed restriction 
area. While this action maintains a buffer zone, i.e., an area for 
which the training requirements apply that is larger than the DC ADIZ 
itself, establishing a training area larger than the Washington, DC 
ADIZ does not imply that the procedures for operating in the 
Washington, DC ADIZ have been expanded to cover the larger airspace.
    In addition, many commenters asserted that requiring training 
within a 100-NM radius of the DCA VOR/DME was too prescriptive. As 
discussed above, the FAA has reduced the training zone to a 60-NM 
radius from the DCA VOR/DME under this final rule. The FAA has decided 
that a 30-NM distance from the outer edges of the Washington, DC ADIZ 
is a sufficient buffer of airspace. The agency has determined that the 
majority of pilots who inadvertently entered the Washington, DC ADIZ 
airspace departed from an airport within a 60-NM radius of the DCA VOR/
DME. Therefore, reducing the training zone any further would not be 
prudent.
3. Frequency of Training
    A minority of commenters expressed concern that the training will 
not be effective because it is a one-time obligation rather than a 
recurrent requirement. There was fear that a pilot would take the 
course, file his or her training certificate away, and forget the 
training unless the pilot flies in the Washington, DC area routinely. 
In contrast, one commenter urged the FAA to ensure that pilots who took 
the Special Awareness Training prior to the issuance of this final rule 
get credit for complying with the requirement.
    A pilot who completed the online training prior to issuance of this 
final rule is not required to retake the training. The FAA is only 
requiring that the training obligation be met once. However, a pilot 
has an on-going responsibility to be competent and proficient. The FAA 
encourages airmen to review periodically the Special Awareness Training 
program. Furthermore, the procedures for operating in the Washington, 
DC ADIZ and FRZ are issued by NOTAM, and a pilot is already required to 
be familiar with any NOTAM issued in the pilot's flying area prior to 
any departure. (See Sec.  91.103.) The training also will be emphasized 
during flight reviews and the FAA-sponsored pilot proficiency awards 
program (WINGS Program).

B. Washington, DC ADIZ Operating Requirements

    Many commenters, including AOPA and HAI, said the operating 
procedures in the Washington, DC ADIZ are overly complex or are 
obscure. These commenters believed that if the FAA would fix the 
difficulties of operating in the ADIZ, rather than require training, 
incursions would decrease.
    The FAA recognizes there have been difficulties with operating in 
the ADIZ. Since the issuance of the Special Awareness Training NPRM, 
the procedures for operating in the Washington, DC ADIZ have been 
modified through an amended NOTAM. The FAA believes that operating in 
the area is now less difficult. Regardless, the FAA believes that pilot 
education remains critical.
    The FAA is issuing this final rule to establish Special Awareness 
Training for pilots who fly within the restricted and special-use 
airspace of the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area under visual flight 
rules. The training, which is currently available online on the http://www.FAASafety.gov Web site, focuses on how to avoid and operate safely 
within the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area ADIZ and FRZ. The FAA 
believes that ``pilot error'' is the biggest contributor to violations 
of the restricted/special-use airspaces in the Washington, DC area, and 
through training, the number of inadvertent incursions into this 
airspace will be reduced.

C. Air Traffic Control

    Approximately a dozen commenters felt that pilot training would not 
work to reduce incursions because the training does not address 
inadvertent errors made by air traffic controllers.

[[Page 46800]]

    The purpose of this rule is to ensure that pilots operating in the 
Washington, DC area are familiar and trained in the operating 
requirements. The FAA has already conducted separate education for air 
traffic controllers at the Potomac Terminal Radar Approach Control 
Facility (TRACON). Additionally, the FAA is working to standardize 
procedures for ATC. For example, air traffic controllers are now 
directing pilots not to change their transponder codes until after 
landing at the airport.

D. The FAA's Enforcement Policy

    Many commenters, including AOPA and HAI, said that the FAA's zero-
tolerance enforcement policy is not appropriate for essentially 
technical errors by pilots who are otherwise following ADIZ procedures. 
AOPA and HAI, among others, suggested that the FAA is creating 
``another hook,'' to get pilots for inadvertent violations. Another 
commenter said that the FAA's enforcement policies do not take into 
account normal human error. In addition, there was concern that the 
training rule will ``serve to criminalize general aviation.''
    The FAA is requiring this training to educate the pilot community 
on how to avoid making inadvertent incursions into the Washington, DC 
ADIZ out of concern for the pilot community and a desire to alleviate 
the burden on FAA and other governmental resources. Anything less than 
mandating the training program undermines the importance the agency 
places on this education. Any requirement, if not complied with, has 
the potential for an associated enforcement action. However, since the 
intent of this requirement is to reduce the number of incursions, there 
should be fewer enforcement proceedings related to inadvertent 
incursions.
    Some commenters seemed to support the FAA in its endeavor and even 
recommended that the FAA perform ramp checks to ensure that pilots took 
the Special Awareness Training course. The FAA does not consider ramp 
checks the most efficient way to ensure that pilots have taken the 
Special Awareness Training or to enhance the education of pilots about 
flying in the Washington, DC ADIZ. The agency will emphasize safe 
operating practices for flying in the Washington, DC area during flight 
reviews, practical tests, and the FAA-sponsored pilot proficiency 
awards program (WINGS Program), which will cover all active pilots. The 
FAA will continue to review the violation history trends and modify the 
training where and when necessary.
    NATA expressed concern about potential violations when a pilot 
cancels instrument-flight-rule (IFR) operation in non-emergency 
situations and proceeds under VFR for landing. NATA said that this 
benefits both the pilot and over-burdened air traffic controllers. NATA 
suggested that the FAA create an exception for this type of situation. 
The FAA recognizes that some pilots cancel their IFR clearances and 
proceed under VFR for landing. However, pilots who wish to do so in the 
airspace covered by this rule are required to take the Special 
Awareness Training.
    As discussed in the preamble of the NPRM, the flight restrictions 
for the Washington, DC ADIZ and FRZ specifically exempt U.S. Department 
of Defense/U.S. military, law enforcement, and approved aeromedical 
operations from certain requirements otherwise applicable to aircraft 
entering the ADIZ and FRZ. (See FDC NOTAM 07/0206.) These operations 
must be handled differently because of their importance to national 
security and safety and for the public interest. These exceptions, 
proposed under Sec.  91.161 (d), have been retained in the final rule 
under Sec.  91.161 (e) ``Exceptions.'' The paragraph, however, has been 
modified by changing the term ``aeromedical'' to ``air ambulance'' to 
mirror current terminology. An air ambulance is a part 135 operator 
that has been issued operations specifications that authorize the 
operator to perform air ambulance operations in either an airplane or a 
helicopter. (See FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 5, Chapter 5.) The exception 
for air ambulance operators does not extend to other medically related 
flights, even if they are operated under a lifeguard call sign. In 
addition, paragraph (e) has been reworded to associate the exceptions 
with the types of flights being performed rather than the persons 
conducting the operations. The paragraph now states that if a flight is 
conducted in an aircraft of an air ambulance operator, the U.S. Armed 
Forces, or a law enforcement agency, the requirements of Sec.  91.161 
do not apply. The exception includes all operations, including 
repositioning aircraft and training flights.

E. Charting the Training Area

    Many commenters, including NATA, AOPA, and HAI, argued that the 
Special Awareness Training zone be shown on applicable FAA aeronautical 
charts. Commenters felt that it was unreasonable for the FAA to put a 
regulation in place without physical representation on a chart. One 
individual even commented that the FAA's actions amounted to the 
creation of a new class of VFR airspace that is uncharted. In whole, 
these commenters did not believe that the FAA's reliance on graphics in 
the training curriculum would be sufficient for the pilot community. 
They felt that the graphics and information provided by the FAA in the 
NPRM and other material were of poor quality or were too vague. These 
deficiencies, argued some, made it difficult for pilots to plot the 
``training zone'' on their own. Additionally, some commenters said, 
general aviation aircraft do not have distance-measuring equipment 
(DME) capable of receiving a VORTAC signal 100 NM away from the DCA 
VOR/DME.
    In response to these comments, the FAA will add to the note on the 
Washington Sectional, Baltimore-Washington Terminal Area Sectional, 
Baltimore-Washington Helicopter Route Sectional, and the CG-21 World 
Aeronautical Chart about the training requirement for the Washington, 
DC ADIZ and FRZ airspace, and will depict the airspace within 60 NM of 
the DC VOR/DME to notify pilots about the training requirements for 
pilots who operate under VFR in this airspace. The FAA acknowledges 
that reducing the distance to 60 NM does not necessarily resolve the 
commenters' concern that general aviation aircraft are not able to 
receive the DCA VOR/DME signal while still some distance from the DCA 
VOR/DME. However, the agency believes that depicting the airspace on 
the Washington Sectional, Baltimore-Washington Terminal Area Sectional, 
Baltimore-Washington Helicopter Route Sectional, and the CG-21 World 
Aeronautical Chart will assist pilots in identifying the training area.

F. Educational Outreach

    Several commenters questioned whether the pilots who really need 
this training will be aware of the requirement. They fear that only 
knowledgable, conscientious pilots who already know about the ADIZ and 
either avoid it or make an effort to comply will take the training, but 
others who are ignorant of the Washington, DC ADIZ will be unaware of 
the requirement to be trained. AOPA said that the FAA should have a 
plan for conducting aggressive educational outreach targeted at 
addressing the most common types of violations.
    The FAA publishes its regulations in the Federal Register, which is 
official notification to the public. The FAA realizes, however, that 
many individuals do not monitor the Federal Register. The agency 
therefore maintains communication with aviation organizations who 
publicize FAA

[[Page 46801]]

actions to their members through their magazines, newsletters, and 
online Web sites. In fact, the FAA heard from one commenter that he 
became aware of the proposed rule through AOPA and the Experimental 
Aircraft Association. For this particular final rule, the FAA also can 
rely on the NOTAM reporting system to be a regular reminder to pilots 
that there is a training requirement attached to operating in the 
Washington, DC area. FDC NOTAMs 07/0206 and 07/0211 specifically 
reference the online training. It is a pilot's responsibility to be 
familiar with all pertinent NOTAMs, so pilots, by meeting the 
requirement to check NOTAMs, will be aware that training is required.

G. Impact on General Aviation Pilots

    Many commenters, including AOPA, believed that the training 
requirement would add an unnecessary burden on the general aviation 
(GA) community.
    The FAA recognizes the impact the training requirement has on the 
GA community, but the agency has minimized the burden. The course 
requires little time and is offered free of cost. The FAA believes the 
online training is the most economical means for pilots to receive 
training because, for most pilots, it can be performed in their own 
homes on their personal computers. Furthermore, in response to concerns 
that the proposed training zone was too large, the FAA reduced the size 
of the airspace from 100 NM to 60 NM from the DCA VOR/DME.
    As already discussed, the FAA has reviewed the history of 
Washington, DC ADIZ violations, and finds that it is GA pilots who 
continue to make mistakes. It is only proper that the training be 
focused on these pilots in order to make them more aware that 
heightened security procedures exist in the Washington, DC metropolitan 
area.

H. Certificate of Training Completion

    Under this final rule, each pilot who is required to complete the 
training course should print and maintain a certificate of training 
completion (the certificate can be downloaded from the http://www.FAASafety.gov Web site). Upon request from an authorized 
representative of the FAA, an authorized representative of the National 
Transportation Safety Board, any Federal, State, or local law 
enforcement officer, or an authorized representative of the 
Transportation Security Administration, the pilot must present the 
certificate of training completion. The FAA further proposed that a 
pilot did not have to necessarily carry the certificate of completion 
document in his or her personal possession, but would be required to 
provide it to a requesting official in a reasonable time period. This 
latter provision raised concerns with at least one commenter. That 
commenter believed that if he were asked to present the certificate but 
he did not have it in his personal possession that a follow-up 
investigation would immediately follow.
    The FAA notes that, because the agency's database identifies pilots 
(by pilot number) who complete the training, the agency would check the 
FAA Safety Database to verify a pilot's claim that he or she completed 
the course.

I. The FAA's Web Site

    One commenter pointed out that Windows software is not free and 
suggested that the FAA make its Web site accessible to other free and 
open-source browsers. He said this will enable Linux and Macintosh 
(Mac) users to access the training regardless of model and operating 
systems. The FAA has designed the accessibility for taking this online 
training via the most accessible system that is being used throughout 
the world. Most PC- and Mac-based browsers will be able to access the 
site using Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5 or above. Internet Explorer 
6.0 or above is preferred. Internet Explorer browsers can be downloaded 
for free at: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/critical/ie6sp1/default.asp.
    Another commenter said that not everyone has computers and that the 
FAA is 10 to 20 years ahead of itself. The FAA considered that not 
everyone owns a personal computer, although the number of pilots who 
may not have access to their own personal computers and Internet is 
small. In addition, public libraries provide access to computers and 
the Internet. Thus, the FAA believes that establishing this training 
online is the most economical and efficient means to provide this 
training to the pilot community.

J. Adopting a Training Requirement Based On a NOTAM

    AOPA expressed concern that adopting the training rule while the 
``Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area'' 
rulemaking action is pending suggests that the codification of the 
NOTAM is preordained despite overwhelming objections. The FAA disagrees 
that adopting the training rule suggests that codification of the 
Washington, DC NOTAMs is preordained. Whether the airspace restrictions 
around Washington, DC exist via NOTAM or via codified regulation in 14 
CFR, the FAA has determined that training is required to safely fly in 
the Washington, DC area.

III. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule

    The provisions proposed as new Sec.  91.161 are adopted with the 
following modifications.
     All references in Sec.  91.161 to ``100 nautical miles of 
the DCA VOR/DME'' have been changed to ``60 nautical miles of the DCA 
VOR/DME;''
     Captions have been added to each lettered paragraph;
     Proposed paragraphs (b) through (d) have been redesignated 
as (c) through (e);
     New paragraph (b) has been added to describe the content 
of the Special Awareness Training and information about where the 
training can be obtained;
     Paragraph (e) (proposed as (d)) has been reworded as 
discussed in ``II.D'' above.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), the FAA submitted a copy of the new (or amended) information 
collection requirement(s) in this final rule to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review. Affected parties do not 
have to comply with the information collection requirements until the 
FAA publishes in the Federal Register the control number assigned by 
OMB for these information requirements. Publication of the control 
number notifies the public that OMB has approved these information 
collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    A description of the annual burden is shown below.
    Description of Respondents: The FAA estimates that approximately 
87,000 persons that fly under VFR within 60 NM of the DCA VOR/DME will 
be affected by the rule, and that the population of affected persons 
will grow by approximately 0.14 percent per year.
    Estimated Burden: The FAA assumes that each person will spend a 
total of 1 hour (40 minutes taking the online training and 20 minutes 
taking the test), at a cost of time of $31.50 per hour.
    Based on that assumption, the first-year cost will be $2,740,500 
((87,000 persons x $31.50) x 1 hour), and time spent during the first 
year would be 87,000 hours (87,000 persons x 1 hour). The FAA estimates 
that in subsequent years (2009-2017), the per-year costs will be $3,843 
(122 persons x $31.50 per 1 hour), and time spent during

[[Page 46802]]

subsequent years would be 122 hours (122 persons x 1 hour).
    The total cost over 10 years is expected to be $2,775,087 
($2,740,500 + (9 x $3,843)), with an average cost per year of $277,509 
(($2,740,500 + (9 x $3,843)) / 10).
    The total number of hours over 10 years is expected to be 88,098 
hours (87,000 + (9 x 122)), with an average number of hours per year of 
8,809.80 hours ((87,000 + (9 x 122)) / 10).
    An agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, 
nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it 
displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control number.

V. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these regulations.

VI. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this final rule. We suggest readers seeking 
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we 
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final 
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an 
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in 
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; 
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on 
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by 
exceeding the threshold identified above.

Total Costs and Benefits of this Rule

    The FAA has determined that from 2008 to 2017, the total cost of 
the rule will be approximately $2.78 million ($2.77 million, 
discounted). The total derives from the cost of requiring pilots who 
fly under VFR within a 60-NM radius from the DCA VOR/DME to take the 
training. If the rule were 100% effective in reducing the number of 
unauthorized flights into the Washington DC, Metropolitan Area ADIZ, 
the potential benefits of the rule over 10 years would be approximately 
$35.7 million ($26.8 million, discounted). The FAA recognizes that a 
100% rate is unrealistic because there is no way to predict the 
effectiveness of the rule. However, the FAA needs only a 10% success 
rate in reducing the number of incursions, resulting in benefits of 
approximately $2.7 million, for this rule to be cost-beneficial.
    The FAA notes the aviation community would receive training at no 
direct monetary cost. Also, this analysis does not calculate the 
benefit of avoiding the use of force against aircraft that improperly 
enter the Washington, DC, ADIZ or FRZ.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a 
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, 
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the 
businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to 
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA provides that 
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement 
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning 
should be clear.
    For the most part, this rule will impact only individual persons, 
who are not considered as entities under RFA, flying VFR within 60 NM 
of the DCA VOR/DME. However, for the few small entities that could be 
impacted by this rule, the additional costs are negligible. The FAA 
estimates that the training requires only an hour of a pilot's time 
(estimated at a cost of time of about $32) and there is no charge for 
the training. Therefore, as the Acting FAA Administrator, I certify 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Statement

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule 
and has determined that it primarily will have an impact on domestic 
operations, although it could affect some international pilots. For 
example, there could be some Canadian pilots affected when they fly 
between Canada and the Southern United States. However, this rulemaking 
will have negligible impact on foreign firms that provide goods or 
services in the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended, 
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates

[[Page 46803]]

on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires 
each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the 
effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that 
may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually 
for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to 
be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an 
inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements 
of Title II do not apply.

VII. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has determined 
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, or the relationship between the national Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism 
implications.

VIII. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

IX. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, 
or Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The FAA has determined that it is 
not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because 
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

X. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this 
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

XI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question 
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or 
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at the 
beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on the 
Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, 
Noise control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 
44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 
44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-
47531, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil 
Aviation (61 Stat. 1180).


0
2. Add Sec.  91.161 to read as follows:


Sec.  91.161  Special awareness training required for pilots flying 
under visual flight rules within a 60-nautical mile radius of the 
Washington, DC VOR/DME.

    (a) Operations within a 60-nautical mile radius of the Washington, 
DC VOR/DME under visual flight rules (VFR). Except as provided under 
paragraph (e) of this section, no person may serve as a pilot in 
command or as second in command of an aircraft while flying within a 
60-nautical mile radius of the DCA VOR/DME, under VFR, unless that 
pilot has completed Special Awareness Training and holds a certificate 
of training completion.
    (b) Special Awareness Training. The Special Awareness Training 
consists of information to educate pilots about the procedures for 
flying in the Washington, DC area and, more generally, in other types 
of special use airspace. This free training is available on the FAA's 
Web site. Upon completion of the training, each person will need to 
print out a copy of the certificate of training completion.
    (c) Inspection of certificate of training completion. Each person 
who holds a certificate for completing the Special Awareness Training 
must present it for inspection upon request from:
    (1) An authorized representative of the FAA;
    (2) An authorized representative of the National Transportation 
Safety Board;
    (3) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
    (4) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security 
Administration.
    (d) Emergency declared. The failure to complete the Special 
Awareness Training course on flying in and around the Washington, DC 
Metropolitan Area is not a violation of this section if an emergency is 
declared by the pilot, as described under Sec.  91.3(b), or there was a 
failure of two-way radio communications when operating under IFR as 
described under Sec.  91.185.
    (e) Exceptions. The requirements of this section do not apply if 
the flight is being performed in an aircraft of an air ambulance 
operator certificated to conduct part 135 operations under this 
chapter, the U.S. Armed Forces, or a law enforcement agency.


[[Page 46804]]


    Issued in Washington, DC on August 5, 2008.
Robert A. Sturgell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-18619 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P